Com. v. Landrau-Melendez, M.

Opinion

J-S56012-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL LANDRAU-MELENDEZ,

Appellant No. 2035 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 17, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0000286-2014

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2016

Appellant, Miguel Angel Landrau-Melendez, appeals from the judgment

of sentence of 21 months’ to 6 years’ incarceration, imposed on June 17,

2015, after a jury convicted him of aggravated harassment by a prisoner, 18

Pa.C.S. § 2703.1. We affirm.

Appellant’s conviction stemmed from evidence that he threw a cup of

urine on another inmate at the Lebanon County Prison. On appeal,

Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence to sustain his

conviction. We have examined the certified record, the briefs of the parties,

and the applicable law. We have also reviewed the October 21, 2015

opinion, drafted by the Honorable Bradford H. Charles of the Lebanon

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S56012-16

County Court of Common Pleas, which explains Judge Charles’ rationale for

denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion in which Appellant raised his

sufficiency and weight-of-the-evidence claims. We conclude that Judge

Charles’ well-reasoned opinion accurately disposes of those two issues.

Accordingly, we adopt Judge Charles’ October 21, 2015 decision as our own

and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence for the reasons set forth

therein.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/16/2016

-2- Circulated 09/01/2016 12:58 PM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LEBANON COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v. MIGUEL LANDRAU~MELENDEZ ...,_ .:".:· .::

f--··

APPEARANCES

Megan Ryland-Tanner, Esquire For Commonwealth of Pennsylvania DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Elizabeth Judd, Esquire For Miguel Landrau-Melendez PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

OPINION BY CHARLES1 J., October 21, 2015

While incarcerated in the Lebanon County Prison, the Defendant

threw a cup of urine at and onto another inmate. He then sent a note to the

victim stating: "Don't press charges. Please don't be a bitch. Don't f***

with my time." Based upon the above evidence and more, a jury found the

Defendant guilty of Aggravated Harassment by a Prisoner. After we

sentenced the Defendant to 21 months to 6 years in a state correctional

facility, the Defendant challenged his conviction by alleging that the jury's

verdict was against the weight of evidence and was not based on. sufficient

evidence. We write this Opinion to affirm our judgment of sentence. L FACTS

On March 16, 2014, Marq Garloff (hereafter "GARLOFFll) was an

inmate housed in Cell Block 3 of the Lebanon County Correctional Facility

located in the City of Lebanon. (N. T. 5). During the morning hours of March

16, 2014, GARLOFF was lying on his bed which was the bottom of the bunk

bed. (N.T. 6). He heard the doors to the cells opening. He then observed

Miguel Landrau-Melendez (hereafter "DEFENDANT") standing in front of his

cell gates. (N.T. 6). DEFENDANT was holding a white Styrofoam cup.

DEFENDANT threw the contents of the white Styrofoam cup at GARLOFF.

(N.T. 10).

GARLOFF testified that the contents of the cup contained urine. He

stated that when DEFENDANT threw the urine at him, it landed on him, his

towel, his bed, his lip and his hair. (N.T. 6). When questioned how he

knew the liquid was urine, GARLOFF testified that some of the urine landed

on his lip and he was able to taste it. In addition, when it landed on his

blanket, it turned the blanket yellow at the wet spots. (N.T. 6). GARLOFF

stated that his towel was hanging on top of the bottom front of his bunk.

At some point either the day of or the day after the incident with the

urine, GARLOFF received a note from DEFENDANT. (N.T. 5). GARLOFF

stated that the note had been delivered to him by someone other than

DEFENDANT. (N.T. 9).

GARLOFF testified that when someone is in prison and is labeled a

snitch, it becomes problematic for the inmate to function through the prison

2 system. In addition there is always the potential that the inmate could be

physically harmed. (N.T. 24). Because of the above, and because

GARLOFF was being threatened by DEFENDANT and half the block and

because of fear and intimidation, GARLOFF wrote a handwritten statement

stating that he did not want to press charges against DEFENDANT.

GARLOFF provided the handwritten statement to DEFENDANT. (N. T. 16-

18). DEFENDANT specifically told GARLOFF to write that the urine did

not get on him and that he would not be pressing charges. (N.T. 19).

GARLOFF did testify under subpoena. However, throughout the

investigation, he cooperated with the Pennsylvania State Police and never

once asked that the charges be withdrawn. (N.T. 25). When introduced as

evidence, GARLOFF was able to identify the towel as the one he had used

for many months. He also indicated that his towel had a rip in it and had

some drawings on it. (N. T. 7 "8; Exh. 4 ).

Bradley Starry (hereafter "STARRY") also testified at trial. He is

employed as a supervisor of the inmates at the Lebanon County

Correctional Facility. On March 161 20141 STARRY was assigned to the

block three control station. (N.T. 25).

At some point in time, STARRY was approached by an inmate who

told him about urine being thrown. (N.T. 25). STARRY entered GARLOFF'S

cell and questioned him about the liquid on GARLOFF's prison issue. (N.T.

26, 30). At the time GARLOFF and another inmate were present inside the

cell. (N.T. 30).

..., .) After questioning GARLOFF, STARRY left the cell block and went to

central control to view the video surveillance tape. (N.T. 26). STARRY

testified that each cell block has their own video surveillance. The video

equipment is set up so that if it is not downloaded and copied, it overrides

itself several days later. (N.T. 30-31). STARRY stated that he did not

burn a copy of the video footage and ultimately the video footage was

overridden and no longer existed. (N. T. 31).

STARRY testified that when he viewed the video, he started from a

point where the inmate approached him. and reported the incident and

backtracked from there. In so doing, STARRY was able to observe

DEFENDANT in front of GARLOFF's cell. (N.T. 32). Upon observing this,

STARRY returned to GARLOFF's cell and collected various items including

GARLOFF's prison uniform, sheets, towel, and anything else that appeared

tobewet. (N.T.32).

STARRY then pulled DEFENDANT out of the block at which time he

said to DEFENDANT that he already knows why he is out here.

DEFENDANT's response was "you have my DNA on file, you're going to

have to send it to the lab to verify It." (N. T. 34). STARRY did not tell

DEFENDANT about the liquid substance or any of the observations he had

made. (N.T. 34).

Captain Michael Ott who is employed as Captain of Security at the

Lebanon County Correctional Facility also testified at trial. Captain Ott

testified that as part of his investigation, he learned that GARLOFF had

4 been provided with a note that said "Don't press charges. Please don't be

a bitch. Don't f with my time. Please, I'm trying to go home. Thank

you, Miguel." (Exh. 5; N.T. 38). When Captain Ott spoke with DEFENDANT,

DEFENDANT acknowledged that he wrote the note. (N.T. 38).

During trial, a Stipulation of Facts was entered by counsel. Among

other things, this stipulation indicated the following:

(1) Forensic scientists were able to detect no urine on the red prison

uniform; however urine was present on the white towel. The sheets

were not analyzed.

(2) All items were collected by Lebanon County Correctional Facility

Officers on March 16, 2014. -

(3) All items were turned over to the Pennsylvania State Police on April

6, 2014 and Troopers from the Pennsylvania State Police transported

the red uniform worn by GARLOFF to the Pennsylvania State Police

Crimes Laboratory on April 30, 2014.

(4) On August 28, 2014, Pennsylvania State Troopers transported the

linens to the Pennsylvania State Police Crimes Laboratory for testing.

The linens included the white sheets and the towel. (Exh. 1; N.T. 39-

42).

II. DISCUSSION

A. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Because DEFENDANT's sufficiency and weight of the evidence

arguments are related, we will address them together. That being said, we

5 recognize that there is a distinction between challenges to sufficiency and

lack of weight of evidence. That distinction was laid out in Commonwealth

v. Whiteman, 485 A.2d 459 (Pa.Super. 1984):

A motion for new trial on grounds that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence concedes that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict but contends, nevertheless, that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Whether a new trial should be granted on the grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge .... The test is not whether the court would have decided the case in the same way but whether the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to make the award of a new trial imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.

Id. at 462, citing Commonwealth v. Taylor, 471 A.2d 1228, 1229-1230

(Pa.Super. 1984). If there is insufficient evidence to support a jury's

verdict, the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United

States Constitution precludes retrial. See Commonwealth v. Whiteman,

supra, (citing Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40, 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (S.Ct.

1981)). On the other hand, "a new trial is a proper remedy when the verdict

is found to be against the weight of the evidence." Id. at 461.

When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence .claim, we apply a two-

step inquiry. First, we consider all of the evidence in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth, accepting as true all evidence upon which

the fact-finder could have based the verdict. Commonwealth v. Walker,

874 A.2d 667, 677 (Pa.Super. 2005). Second, we must ask whether that

evidence, along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, was

6 sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v.

Azim, 459 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa.Super. 1983).

In passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the· weight to be

afforded the evidence produced, the jury is at liberty to believe all, part, or

none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Price, 610 A.2d 488 (Pa.Super.

1992). We are not to engage in post-verdict credibility discussions, nor are

we permitted to substitute our opinion regarding the facts for that of the

jury. Commonwealth v. Brown, 486 A.2d 441 (Pa.Super. 1984). If the

fact-finder could have reasonably determined from the evidence that all of

the necessary elements of the crime were established, then that evidence

will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict. Commonwealth v,

Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 913-14 (Pa.Super. 2000).

The standard to be applied when assessing a challenge to the weight

of evidence imposes a "heavy burden" upon the defendant.

Commonwealth v. Staton, 1998 WL 1297080 (C.P. Philadelphia 1998). A

jury's verdict will be overturned only when it is "so contrary to the evidence

as to shock one's sense of justice." Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 615 A.2d

350, 361 (Pa.Super. 1992). This standard has been described as follows:

"When the figure of Justice totters on her pedestal, or when the jury's

verdict, at the time of its rendition, causes the trial judge to lose his breath,

temporarily, and causes him to almost fall from the bench then it is truly

shocking to the judicial conscience." Commonwealth v. Davidson, 860

A.2d 575, 581 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citations om)tted).

7 The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is

free to believe all, part or none of the evidence and to determine the

credibility of the witnesses. Commonwealth v. Simmons, 662 A.2d 621,

630 (Pa. 1995). The function of the fact finder is to pass on the credibility

of witnesses and determine the weight to be accorded to a particular piece

of evidence. Id.

In this case, the Commonwealth established the following inculpatory

information:

(1) The video surveillance tape observed by STARRY showed

DEFENDANT standing in front of GARLOFF's cell block prior to the

incident.

(2) GARLOFF identified DEFENDANT as the person who threw the cup of

urine on him.

(3) As indicated by the Stipulation of facts, GARLOFF's towel tested

positive for urine.

(4) DEFENDANT threatened and intimidated GARLOFF into writing a

statement that the urine did not get on him. What purpose would

DEFENDANT have to threaten GARLOFF and have GARLOFF write

such a statement if DEFENDANT was not even involved in this

incident?

(4) DEFENDANT acknowledged to Captain Ott that he provided

GARLOFF with a note that read "Don't press charges. Please don't

be a bitch. Don't f with my time. Please, I'm trying to go home.

8 Thank you, Miguel." Once again, why would DEFENDANT have even

written this note to GARLOFF if he was innocent of any wrongdoing?

Based on the above information and more, we believe that the jury

possessed more than enough evidence to find DEFENDANT guilty of the

crimes charged. Moreover, we cannot say that the jury's verdict was so

"shocking" as to be against the weight of evidence. Accordingly, the Post-

Sentence Motions filed by DEFENDANT based upon weight and sufficiency

of evidence will be denied.